There is no greater force than an idea whose time as come.

So we have always had open borders then

 

I would think what I said is the complete opposite of that

The nuns frex, weren't trying to be killed but they may have been reckless. Purely without meaning to, of course.
Still, you're right, no matter what we do, **** happens.

 

Universal suffrage, everybody votes. (well not blacks and women and First Nations but c'mon, they DID get in eventually, about an even century later)

A major and defining feature of America since the time of Jackson

 

Open borders right now. About half register. There is insufficient time to properly vet them. Most of those never reappear for court hearings. The other half sneak across and we have no idea who they are and where they go.

 

If saying a few sneak across like during the Trump administration is open borders, then we have always had open borders.

 

It is good with a little Everything But The Bagel sprinkled on top.

 

All good points, but still does not justify the mob rule being proposed.

 

Without the EC the Biden presidency would be illegitimate.

 

I don't think we need to get rid of the electoral college.

What DOES need to change is this:

ALL states should use the popular vote model to determine where it's electoral votes go. If they want the state to be winner-take-all or broken into districts, that's up to them. But all votes from the state or all it's districts should go only to the candidate that won the popular vote in that district or state. I think this is how it works already, but I mention this because it ties directly into what I state below.

NO STATE LEGISLATURE should have any say in or control over how those electoral votes are awarded in any given contest once election day voting has occurred. The votes should be dispersed according to the popular vote, no exceptions. Those times we saw in 2020 where state governments were going to try and change their state's electoral votes to go to Trump instead of Biden are the complete opposite of how voting should work. They were absolutely disgusting examples if politicians trying to subvert the will of the people. Every politician who even talked about something like that without condemning it should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. A state government should never EVER be allowed to overule the popular vote in their state. If there are situations where fraud has occurred AND CAN BE PROVEN, redo the election. Or abstain from the electoral count. No government body should have the right to make that choice for the voters in their state.

 

Yeah... then we can be like Great Britain, where one city -- London -- controls everything. Or, like France, where one city -- Paris -- controls everything. Or like Russia, where one city -- Moscow -- controls everything... shall I go on? There are quite a number of others, found all around the world!

If we eliminate the constitutional Electoral College, we'll have a handful of lib-infested megapolises controlling every single thing in American life.

Example? Look at the current 'woke', radical Democrat push for a new so-called, 'voting-rights' change that would FEDERALIZE elections in this country. THAT is the kind of thing that happens as we continue our downward slide into allowing a few Democrat-controlled cities and their minions to take over everything for all of us....

 

You didn't give me a reason why I should want to live in the same country as you.

BTW, why do you want to live in the same country as me?

I'm not going to change. All you can do is oppress me so I have no say in the country. Do you really want to oppress tens of millions of us?

 

I can't much disagree with this, but the relative power of congress vs. the president is a bit contextual and depends on what slant one takes. IMO, presently the president has more power than congress, but that is mostly congress's fault.

 

​

I will go with what it is taken for these days not some theoretical theory.....

 

Bolony. Presidential candidates only campaign in seven or eight states at most. This electoral college is bologna. And an advantage for the Republicans because so many of their states are under populated rural areas but still get two electoral votes at least.

 

You have one vote for your state electors if you state holds and election, you vote has as much weight as anyone else in that election. STATES elect the President not the People, we are a federal republic.

US Civics 101.

 

Then why is he trying to dictate state election law?

 

States vote for the President. If you are allowed to vote for you state electors where is the ambivalence, ambiguity and inequality? You should do something about that in your state.

 

So if you want to get rid of the States and that they elect the President then get an amendment passed. And BTW the first 10 were simply an extension of the main body, and one was repealed by another so that leaves 15 that changes or affirmations to the original. My state Constitution has 977.................and it was passed in 1901, 113 years AFTER the US Constitution.

 

As I've stated before, the vast majority of western democracies are representative democracies, noting that all of them elect a president with a popular vote. But, they don't call them that in the other countries, because the term 'popular vote' is redundant, it is it is just the vote -- and only in this country, where we have the EC, the term 'popular vote' is used.

Of course we can have a president elected via popular vote, just like all the other western democracies, and still have laws created by elected representatives, just like all the other western democracies. same goes for governors and on down the line.

 

Almost all elect their leaders through local electorates. This creates the opportunity for winning with less of the vote than your opponent. For instance, Bob Hawke won in Australia in 1990 while his opponent got over 50% of the vote.

The point is it's still a democracy, indeed a more robust democracy. There is nothing superior about electing leaders on a popular vote.

 

No it wouldn't.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S4-C1-1-1-1-1/ALDE_00001036/[]
The Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes.

Where congress perceives states are creating election rules to influence outcomes, congress has a duty to intervene.

ONe person one vote means all votes weigh the same, and redirects the vote away from states, which is what it is now, to individuals, so your premise is false, such that under this method, one person one vote, where people live is an incidental fact (as opposed to a causative fact).

Just about all the western democracies, if not all of them, elect the president via popular vote, and, in those countries, there is no such term, just the vote, because 'popular vote' is redundant. It's only a thing in this country.

 

The country we both live in has different people with different views. In a democracy, not everyone is going to agree.

In a democracy, we have the vote, and under the terms of democracy, the person with the most votes, wins.

Someone is always going to win, someone is always going to lose. It cannot be any other way.

A democracy allows for diversity.

The losers are not totally forgotten, there will be a number of representatives and senators, etc, that will give your view a voice.

And, in the next election, your side might be the victors.

Democracy doesn't equal 'oppression of minorities'. Democrats do all they can to help minorities.

Republicans do all they can to avoid helping minorities.

Perhaps that is the reason they are unable to win the popular vote.

The inability to live with others who disagree with you is called bigotry.

Is that who you are?

If that is who you are, you are free to move to another country more suitable to your views.

 

Then you would be agreeing with me. On the list below, scroll down to 'modernity' for the vast list of republics, of which
every type I mentioned and beyond is inclusive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_republics#21st_century_and_later

 

We are also free to free ourselves from our oppressors and form our own country.

You wouldn't win a civil war, you know. It is the despicables who drive your trucks, it is the despicables who grow your food, it is the despicables who refine your oil. In short, it is the despicables who are keeping you alive. I know, I know. You are going topl import Mexicans to do those jobs and replace the White working class. Better hurry before we call a general strike and bring your liberal cities to their knees.

 

Yes, it's a change from states to individuals, 'an idea whose time has come'.